[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: AW: Bug#8676: xautolock belongs in non-free

> From: marekm@i17linuxb.ists.pwr.wroc.pl (Marek Michalkiewicz)
> > But how about people (including me) who have working procmail setups?
> I think Stephen's going to GPL it for us. One good reason for holding

That would be fine (though it doesn't have to be GPLed to be free).

> the line on free software is that Debian has caused many software packages
> to go to the GPL or other free licenses. Note that Dan Quinlan got
> latex2e to GPL, there are no doubt many other examples like this.

Unfortunately, many packages were also moved to non-free.  It's just
that I feel we hold the line on free software a little too strongly.

> Libpaper is our creation, is it not? Perhaps the GPL vs. LGPL is a mistake.

It is copyrighted by Yves Arrouye <Yves.Arrouye@marin.fdn.fr>, one of
the former Debian developers.  It would be good to try to reach the
author and ask for a different license.

> None of this argument is about contrib at all. It's about the "core".
> I did not propose any changes for contrib.

OK, thanks for explaining this.

> It was the opinion of a number of people that "free with Debian only"
> software wasn't really free software at all.

But it should still be free enough to distribute on Debian CDs, I think.
That's why I am proposing that if such software may not be in the main
distribution, then should be in contrib, not in non-free.  My point is
that as much as legally possible should be included on CDs (now that
there are two anyway), and thus in contrib, to save downloading time
(and costs) for people with limited (modem only) Internet access.
Unfortunately, I will be one of them soon :-(.

(If I remember correctly, tcp-wrappers are included in Debian with
the author's permission, too - is there a "free" equivalent?)


Reply to: